Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 159 posts

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#101

Post by droithomme »

OstiaAntica wrote: post #96
szopa wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying is incorrect. YouTube has deals with major content producers (music labels, movie studios, etc.) which work in the following way: whenever we discover a video that infringes their copyright, they can choose to either block it, monetize it or track it. What blocking means is quite obvious; monetizing means that we put ads in front of the video and share the revenue; tracking means no ads are shown,…

Google purchased YouTube and THEN entered into those content deals. Before that, it was very touch and go for YouTube-- they couldn't afford their bandwidth, let alone licensing deals, and many commenters said that Google was stupid to take on YouTube's copyright liability.

Yes, thank you, exactly. There were tons of articles at the time about YouTube's blatant disregard for the law and their wanton illegal activity, and the obviously weren't troubled by it. They managed to get a huge amount of investment and then had their lawyers make deals and settlements with content owners. This is all a matter of public record and has been well covered in the media. The gentleman claiming to work for Google is certainly aware of the history so his misrepresenting it now certainly looks like a bad faith attempt to whitewash their past behavior. This is not an aberration for Google either, their Google Books scanning was in egregious violation of copyright and they certainly knew it and the so-called Google Books settlement was nothing more than a giant corporation making a play to steal billions of dollars worth of intellectual property they had no right to. Monetizing of IP they don't own is most of Google's business model. Google employees who make their living off Google's activities who are critical of this lady's web service are certainly being hypocritical and outrageous.

edit: Downvote all you want, it doesn't change history or facts, much as you may want it to.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#102

Post by droithomme »

Natsu wrote: post #90
fourspace wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to play devil's advocate here, what you're saying is that folks like Bernie Madoff should not go to prison.

And to be fair, it would be better for him to spend his time working off his debt to his victims, rather than being a drain on society in prison. Structured appropriately, it could constitute adequate punishment--for example, being under "house arrest" rather than in prison.

I agree with you. Situations like this are perfect for indentured servitude (which is specifically permitted under the 14th Amendment as punishment for a crime). Madoff should spend the rest of his life scrubbing the toilets of the people he defrauded, starting at the smallest debt and working his way up, earning minimum wage doing whatever legal tasks they require of him until he has repaid each one in full. All his heirs and relatives need to be carefully audited as well to get back the money he has holed away throughout the globe.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#103

Post by chc »

lachyg wrote: post #65
dillona wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you are not given the option to pay for it? Is it still wrong to download? Remember many people outside America can't use Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video, etc.

I'm one of those people with none of those options. Yes, it's definitely still wrong. Just because we don't have the option, doesn't mean it's morally / ethically right and or legal.

But that doesn't mean it isn't morally and ethically right either. You need to first lay out a moral framework that enshrines copyright as inviolate (I'm very curious what, if any, exceptions you'll make for fair use), and then argue for it. It seems to me that in the most common rational models of morality, things default to being either moral or amoral unless shown to be otherwise.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#104

Post by chc »

lachyg wrote: post #60
realo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picture this for a moment: It's your Birthday. Your friends invited you to the nicest restaurant in town. Very nice venue, food is great. End of meal... time for dessert. Your friends love you and, together, singe you the nicest rendition of 'Happy Birthday To You' you ever heard. Life is good. This was an illegal performance. Secret police comes in, puts your friends in prison (they stole & performed the song) and a…

It's taken me three hours to really think about your comment, and I can't really think of a satisfying response. Your hyperbole aside, I think this is apples and oranges. I don't think it's a comparable situation. People playing Nirvana in a garage and singing Happy Birthday to You at birthday parties is not the same thing as downloading material that you have access to buy. It's accepted that we can partake in these…

The distinction you're drawing seems arbitrary. You could buy a license to "Happy Birthday To You", but instead you choose to perform it without a license. How is appropriating without a proper license to perform a work substiantially different from doing the same thing to watch a work?

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#105

Post by tikhonj »

lachyg wrote: post #95
dillona wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose I just disagree. These are ephemeral goods we are talking about. Nobody loses anything if you download a movie. I don't see how it is morally wrong to download something if the creators refuse to take your money.

Again, like all my opinions above I'm going to get downvoted, but I still can't comprehend how you can justify that it's not wrong to download it just because they're "ephemeral" digital goods. How does that make it any different? How about this: famous dress maker designs and creates an extravagant dress and then you, with your fine sowing skills replicate the dress entirely and wear it. Is that not wrong in your ey…

First off, your example wouldn't even be illegal, as far as I know: at least in the US, fashion is not covered by copyright.

Secondly, I don't see why it would be immoral: the designer of the dress is not hurt at all by your copying it. Now, if you claim your dress has actually been made by said designer--e.g. you infringe on his trademark--that's basically fraud and a completely different case.

The real issue is that it seems you define "wrong" as an enumeration of things you shouldn't do, among which you seem to include copying without permission.

You haven't given any reason for it to be wrong. I think that something is not "wrong" or "immoral" by default; unless there's a good reason for something to be wrong, it shouldn't be. And, as copying like this does not obviously harm society, I see no reason for it to be wrong.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#106

Post by tbrownaw »

18pfsmt wrote: post #79
dangrossman wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@oelewapperke : You are hellbanned so (almost) nobody can see your comments. Copyright infringement is also a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and statutory damages. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

Just to be clear, commercial copyright infringement (i.e. for profit) is criminal, personal copyright infringement (i.e. you download it and watch it) is civil.

Or if you reproduce (does "reproduce" include downloading a copy, or only providing copies to others? Doesn't matter for bittorrent I suppose.) or distribute things worth more than $1000 retail value in 180 days (17.506.a.b) or you share pre-release works (17.506.a.c).

I'm pretty sure most "so-and-so discography" torrents would qualify for the first one.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.pdf

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#107

Post by chairface »

richardburton wrote: post #61
realo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picture this for a moment: It's your Birthday. Your friends invited you to the nicest restaurant in town. Very nice venue, food is great. End of meal... time for dessert. Your friends love you and, together, singe you the nicest rendition of 'Happy Birthday To You' you ever heard. Life is good. This was an illegal performance. Secret police comes in, puts your friends in prison (they stole & performed the song) and a…

You are using the slippery-slope argument here. That is a fallacy.

I see no slippery slope in his argument. Singing Happy Birthday in public is actually a copyright violation, right now.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#108

Post by silentOpen »

szopa wrote: post #93
droithomme wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sure look the same to me. When I type in a name of a movie to see if there is a DVD on amazon yet, often Google, YouTube's owner, offers to show me the version someone has uploaded to their servers. Then, Google/YouTube makes revenue from showing me ads if I or anyone chooses to go to that page. It's absurd to claim YouTube is not about unlicensed content. The vast majority of their streamed content was unlicens…

What you are saying is incorrect. YouTube has deals with major content producers (music labels, movie studios, etc.) which work in the following way: whenever we discover a video that infringes their copyright, they can choose to either block it, monetize it or track it. What blocking means is quite obvious; monetizing means that we put ads in front of the video and share the revenue; tracking means no ads are shown,…

This system was put in place years after YouTube launched. YouTube was propelled to popularity without any automatic detection systems in place. Your distinction is disingenuous or you are ignorant of the history of your own employer.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#109

Post by nicki_easy »

mef wrote: post #92
nicki_easy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but does Neil H. MacBride or anyone working in his office have a lick of common sense? It seems like people so unable to see things in proper perspective should be prohibited from exercising the legal profession. "The government cites nothing that warrants reconsideration. Reviewing NinjaVideo’s Facebook page, and a related internet forum, the government finds a woman who is letting off some steam in her online…

I agree with this analysis that she was joking, but being at a disadvantage having recently become a convict, she's the one who would most benefit from exercising common sense.

So do you think her common sense should have told her to keep her mouth shut? As an idealistic young American with no experience with the justice system and a firm belief that what was happening to her was wrong, I think her common sense told her she had the right to speak her mind and to crack a few jokes to mollify the terror she felt at having just received a federal prison sentence. I think that would be a fairly normal assumption for many or most people.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#110

Post by burgerbrain »

lachyg wrote: post #59

I've hijacked this thread enough, but I'd love to post this question separately. Libraries are an institutionalised form of piracy. Am I wrong here? Thoughts? I've just had a philosophical discussion with my Dad about piracy and this was one of the conclusions we seemed to make.

No, that is absurd.

1) "Piracy" is actually copyright infringement.

2) The license to read a book accompanies the physical copy.

3) Libraries are not engaging in copyright infringement.

4) Thus libraries are not engaging in "piracy".

There is nothing "philosophical" about it, it's just plain old common sense.

Post reply on HN